Debt begets debt

LilOlLady

Gold Member
Apr 20, 2009
10,014
1,310
190
Reno, NV
DEBT BEGETS DEBT.

Obama is not the blame for the growing debt. Bush created the debt and it growth is result of Obama trying to fix it. Bush gave birth to the baby and now the baby is growing and Right Wing Congress is will not let Obama stop the baby from becoming a giant. Someone who is unemployed creates debt and if unemployment continue more debt is created and finally bankrupt and the only fix is a job. Obama slowed down the growth of the baby with the stimulus and bail our of those institutions “too important” to fail. It is not a giant yet but it will be if Right Wing Congress have it’s way. No matter who get the baby in 2012, the only fix is jobs not more tax cut, more government spending and more cut in entitlement programs. Our biggest economy growth was when government was spending, entitlement programs was in place and taxes was at a fair rate.

Bush’s baby continue to say; “feed me” and Right Wing Congress say “at your service.”
 
DEBT BEGETS DEBT.

Obama is not the blame for the growing debt. Bush created the debt and it growth is result of Obama trying to fix it. Bush gave birth to the baby and now the baby is growing and Right Wing Congress is will not let Obama stop the baby from becoming a giant. Someone who is unemployed creates debt and if unemployment continue more debt is created and finally bankrupt and the only fix is a job. Obama slowed down the growth of the baby with the stimulus and bail our of those institutions “too important” to fail. It is not a giant yet but it will be if Right Wing Congress have it’s way. No matter who get the baby in 2012, the only fix is jobs not more tax cut, more government spending and more cut in entitlement programs. Our biggest economy growth was when government was spending, entitlement programs was in place and taxes was at a fair rate.

Bush’s baby continue to say; “feed me” and Right Wing Congress say “at your service.”

So Obama is increasing our debt at a record rate in order to try and fix the huge debt we already have?

You're delusional.

Oh and Obama has NOT slowed the growth of the baby. Obama is running deficits at triple the size of Bush's biggest deficit. This baby is growing much faster under Obama.

obama-deficit-10.jpg
 
Every POTUS inherits the winning and losing hands that the previous administrations leave them.

Obama is not different in that respect.

The economic CRASH started in the summer of 2007. Bush II's admin was already starting to bail out private banks in order to prevent a complete meltdown ling before Obama took over..

Obama's admin really had little choice but to continue that process.

Had Bush II, then Obama failed to do so, I suspect the world's economic engine would be silent today.
 
Last edited:
The history of our deficit has never been resolved by Republicans, ever! They like to spend and we have a history of it. I don't even know why they even bother going through the motions of trying to reduce the deficit since no one has since the early 1800's.
 
...The economic CRASH started in the summer of 2007...
No it didn't.

None of us deny that making up econ history to push a political agenda is a crook. Lets agree on facts:
gdpshot.png

The economy was expanding through mid '08 and the contraction began when Obama won the primaries and the election.
 
...The economic CRASH started in the summer of 2007...
No it didn't.

None of us deny that making up econ history to push a political agenda is a crook. Lets agree on facts:
gdpshot.png

The economy was expanding through mid '08 and the contraction began when Obama won the primaries and the election.

While I agree with your sentiments, let's be honest about what we're looking at here...
Those numbers you posted are not adjusted for inflation. The economy first started contracting in Q1 of 2008, followed by a short lived uptick in Q2 2008 after the tax refund checks. Then the crises reached critical mass in the late summer. You could hardly attribute things like the collapse of Lehman Brothers to Obama being the democratic nominee.

gdp2008.jpg


And the subprime bubble did explode in July 2007, it just took a while to take the entire economy down with it.
 
Last edited:
...While I agree with your sentiments, let's be honest about what we're looking at here...
Tempting to continue with "come back to the Planet Earth here" but since I started snarky with my "making up econ history" I'll just say now that we've got problems with the BEA's deflator.

Two years ago the BEA's chained GDP actually showed a 1.3% expansion in 2008. A couple years later the deflator was revised to have 2008's final numbers reflect a contraction, and 2008's final GDP ended up all of 0.3% below that of 2007.
gdpan03.png

Normally I like the BEA but Obama has a big stake in blaming the recession on Bush and has no shame in changing other numbers. His worse move (that I know of) was bribing the NBER to peg the downturn's beginning in late '07 even when '08 had been seen as expanding. The later fudging still left the GDP with an unbroken expansion for no less than a third of a year past the official recession's beginning.

imho 'real' GDP just isn't as real as it used to be.
 
...While I agree with your sentiments, let's be honest about what we're looking at here...
Tempting to continue with "come back to the Planet Earth here" but since I started snarky with my "making up econ history" I'll just say now that we've got problems with the BEA's deflator.

Two years ago the BEA's chained GDP actually showed a 1.3% expansion in 2008. A couple years later the deflator was revised to have 2008's final numbers reflect a contraction, and 2008's final GDP ended up all of 0.3% below that of 2007.
gdpan03.png

Normally I like the BEA but Obama has a big stake in blaming the recession on Bush and has no shame in changing other numbers. His worse move (that I know of) was bribing the NBER to peg the downturn's beginning in late '07 even when '08 had been seen as expanding. The later fudging still left the GDP with an unbroken expansion for no less than a third of a year past the official recession's beginning.

imho 'real' GDP just isn't as real as it used to be.

Okay so you're going to use BEA's numbers as an example, even used their numbers to challenge what I've posted from another website, but then come back and challenge how reliable the BEA's numbers really area? That doesn't leave us with very much data to discuss then. Over the past several years growth for nearly all years has been revised down as a result of their benchmark revisions.

I think the revision of 2008 to a contraction is more accurate, especially when you consider the state of nearly every other economic indicator for that entire calendar year. ISM Manufacturing contracted every single month, payrolls shrunk in every single month, home sales plummeted, and other retail sales shrank with the exception of a few months in the Spring.
 
Who cares if it was obama's or bush's term that the recession started in?

The bubble grew under bush, the recession was inevitable. What/when it triggered is irrelevant it was growing long before the recession.


And now, Obama is creating the seeds of even bigger depression with his spend and burrow plan. Just like bush did after the clinton crash.

They are the same. Aren't their economic advisors largely the same too?
 
Obama is not the blame for the growing debt. ”

that of course is perfectly idiotic and perfectly liberal. Republicans since Jefferson have been for making debt illegal. Modern Republicans are for a Balanced Budget Amendment, as was Jefferson, to make debt illegal but of course liberals are opposed. BO is a liberal by the way.

And now another liberal knows her ABC's too
 
They are the same. Aren't their economic advisors largely the same too?

the same??? That is stupid for sure. Republicans mostly vote the opposite of Democrats. The split is nearly 100% perfect nowadays.
What planet have you been on?
 
Bush II's admin was already starting to bail out private banks in order to prevent a complete meltdown long before Obama took over..

Obama's admin really had little choice but to continue that process.

firstly the "bailouts" saved the economy not just the banks. Most of the bank owners lost all their money, the ones who survive trade at a tiny fraction of their old values, and the money was all paid back so there was no bailout really.

Secondly, its now BO's economy and he is running it into the ground with other liberal anti free market policies exactly as FDR did. If BO can keep in going for 6 years he will become a hero to libturds just as FDR by prolonging the Depression for 10 years .

Thats the world we live in.
 
...Okay so you're going to use BEA's numbers as an example, even used their numbers to challenge what I've posted from another website, but then come back and challenge how reliable the BEA's numbers really area?...
The BEA's GDP numbers do a good job of showing how the economy's doing and we shouldn't be afraid to look at all of them and understand why they change. We can use the BEA's latest deflator just as we can use the older one too. Lots of tools available.

We can work here only if we can stick to the reality of the economy and not change the subject away from the economy and get bogged down on your past memories or what you fantasize about my thinking, although we both know that's what a lots of posters do here when they find they don't know what they're talking about.
 
...Okay so you're going to use BEA's numbers as an example, even used their numbers to challenge what I've posted from another website, but then come back and challenge how reliable the BEA's numbers really area?...
The BEA's GDP numbers do a good job of showing how the economy's doing and we shouldn't be afraid to look at all of them and understand why they change. We can use the BEA's latest deflator just as we can use the older one too. Lots of tools available.

We can work here only if we can stick to the reality of the economy and not change the subject away from the economy and get bogged down on your past memories or what you fantasize about my thinking, although we both know that's what a lots of posters do here when they find they don't know what they're talking about.

I'm willing to work with you on this one. However I follow the school of thought that the reason things are so bad at this time is because Obamas actions have actually stifled the sort of recovery that we should be experiencing at this stage in the business cycle. I'm not disputing the fact that he inherited a bad hand but I do agree that his policies have made things worse. Another thing I will not dispute is that the recession did in fact start in December 2007, this is common knowledge and it was in fact determined by the NBER, if you can point to any credible publications or up to date data that suggest otherwise I would be willing to keep an open mind. However blaming Obama for the for the recession would be like blaming Bush for the .com implosion, which by the way many democrats have tried to do.

In fact, I'll even go further to say that I don't believe the recession was entirely Bush's fault. I've made it clear in other threads that it was a result of a long build up of things that took place over course of several administrations, mostly as a result of liberal policies.
 
it was a result of a long build up of things that took place over course of several administrations, mostly as a result of liberal policies.

Yes, of course!! Fanny, Freddie, Federal Reserve, FHA, CRA were all liberal creations designed to subvert the free market. They were in operation long before Bush ever arrived in DC.
 
...not disputing the fact that he inherited a bad hand...
We hear that a lot in the news and something we hardly hear is that since he took office America's population's grown by millions while the number of people working has fallen by millions. What that means here is that any success Obama has in returning America to the way it was when it was a 'bad hand' will be considered a great accomplishment.
...I will not dispute is that the recession did in fact start in December 2007, this is common knowledge and it was in fact determined by the NBER, if you can point to any credible publications or up to date data that suggest otherwise I would be willing to keep an open mind...
The facts we're working with here are that when the NBER committee picks recession dates they use different indicators every time and if they feel like it they can and have had recessions begin even while the GDP soars to new all time highs and unemployment falls. So while NBER accounts for changes in the economic nature of recessions they keep the political nature consistent and for 50 years each new set of indicators some how always begins recessions with Republican presidents. The controversy took a new turn in '08 when the committee announced the Dec. 07 date right before the '08 election followed by committee members benefiting from Obama's political appointments.

Of course there's much more to it than that, just like there's more to an economy than GDP and unemployment. NBER's problem of conflict isn't nearly as bad as that of the press' never mentioning that recessions begin when the economy is at its best, and recoveries begin when conditions are at their worst.
 
...not disputing the fact that he inherited a bad hand...
We hear that a lot in the news and something we hardly hear is that since he took office America's population's grown by millions while the number of people working has fallen by millions. What that means here is that any success Obama has in returning America to the way it was when it was a 'bad hand' will be considered a great accomplishment.

That is true. The economy was however in a steep downward trajectory at the time that Obama took office, so even if he was a good president it would have taken a while for the decline to ease, and many jobs would still have been lost in the process. I believe that if it weren't for Obamas policies and his debt binge years 2010 and 2011 and forward would be looking a lot better than they happened to turn out.


...I will not dispute is that the recession did in fact start in December 2007, this is common knowledge and it was in fact determined by the NBER, if you can point to any credible publications or up to date data that suggest otherwise I would be willing to keep an open mind...
The facts we're working with here are that when the NBER committee picks recession dates they use different indicators every time and if they feel like it they can and have had recessions begin even while the GDP soars to new all time highs and unemployment falls. So while NBER accounts for changes in the economic nature of recessions they keep the political nature consistent and for 50 years each new set of indicators some how always begins recessions with Republican presidents. The controversy took a new turn in '08 when the committee announced the Dec. 07 date right before the '08 election followed by committee members benefiting from Obama's political appointments.

Of course there's much more to it than that, just like there's more to an economy than GDP and unemployment. NBER's problem of conflict isn't nearly as bad as that of the press' never mentioning that recessions begin when the economy is at its best, and recoveries begin when conditions are at their worst.[/QUOTE]

This is nothing new. The recession that started in March 2001 wasn't called until December of that year, a month after we actually came out of it. It takes a while for them to finalize the data to make the determination. Plus, the contraction needs to last for more than just a few months before they're allowed to call it a recession. Most of the major economic indicators were pointing downward by early 2008, and by that summer there wasn't a significant economic indicator that wasn't pointing down. And these are numbers I've posted before, so let's move past this.
 
it was a result of a long build up of things that took place over course of several administrations, mostly as a result of liberal policies.

Yes, of course!! Fanny, Freddie, Federal Reserve, FHA, CRA were all liberal creations designed to subvert the free market. They were in operation long before Bush ever arrived in DC.

Exccept fof the facts that you complely miss who these organizations actually benefit?

You're right.

Who WINS because of the above, Ed?

The poor? The middle class?

No, lad, it was the wealthy getting wealthier because of those organizations and policies.

FYI, I also note that you miss the obvious.

Most of those dubious mortgages were bundled and sold by PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.
 
...Most of the major economic indicators were pointing downward by early 2008...
No they weren't. Of course there're an infinite number of indicators so it's always easy to pick more of the ones that agree with a particular agenda to prove a point. My point is we accept the economy as it is so we can feed ourselves and we play politics on our own time. That means we put a lot of stock in the GDP and unemployment, both of which were better in early 2008 than in late 2007.

Sure, we can also point to total private wealth (very important) which had fallen in early '08, but that had already been going on for year anyway so NBER's Dec. 07 date was at best arbitrary and capricious, and at worst politically mendacious.
 
it was a result of a long build up of things that took place over course of several administrations, mostly as a result of liberal policies.

Yes, of course!! Fanny, Freddie, Federal Reserve, FHA, CRA were all liberal creations designed to subvert the free market. They were in operation long before Bush ever arrived in DC.

Exccept fof the facts that you complely miss who these organizations actually benefit?

You're right.

Who WINS because of the above, Ed?

The poor? The middle class?

No, lad, it was the wealthy getting wealthier because of those organizations and policies.

FYI, I also note that you miss the obvious.

Most of those dubious mortgages were bundled and sold by PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.

The programs were set up and back stopped by the federal govt to benefit the poor and middle class, and it did the opposite. More than anything they benefited the likes of Bernie Frank, who by the way is now been put in charge of our financial reform. And yes, the banks did make a lot of money off the program before the loans went bad, but they were under pressure by the govt to issue as much toxic debt as possible in the name of "fairness" to people who otherwise had no qualifications to finance a home.

If we lived in a truly free market we would not have this problem.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top